CERA SANITARYWARE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO's invocation of Rule 8D was justified as the assessee's explanation for suo moto disallowance was not satisfactory. However, the addition of Rs. 45,97,690 under Section 41(1) was deleted as it was already included in the assessee's returned income and constituted a double addition.
What were the facts?
The assessee earned exempt income and made a suo moto disallowance. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Rule 8D, disallowing a further amount. The assessee also argued that a Rs. 45,97,690 addition under Section 41(1) was a double addition as it was already accounted for.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO correctly invoked Rule 8D for disallowance of expenses related to exempt income, and whether the addition under Section 41(1) constituted a double addition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- FLSmidth (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT7 citing118 Taxmann.com 272 · 2020 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
आदेश आदेश आदेश
PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
The above appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 13.6.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground no.1 raised by the assessee reads as under:
The learned CIT (Appeal
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026